> On Feb 19, 2018, at 8:13 AM, Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com> wrote: > > Hi Wiles > > From: Wiles, Keith, Monday, February 19, 2018 3:56 PM >>> On Feb 19, 2018, at 12:03 AM, Matan Azrad <ma...@mellanox.com> wrote: >>>> Is this the type of API that needs to be marked experimental, >>> >>> I think it is relevant to any exposed API(not only for internal libraries). >>> >>>> we should be able to prove these functions, correct? >>> >>> Don't we need to prove any function in DPDK? >>> What is your point? >> >> >> My point is this is a inline function and can not be placed in the .map file >> as a >> external API. > > Doesn't each API in .h file external? Why not? > If it shouldn't be external and should be in .h file, I think it should be > marked as internal, no?
We do not do a great job of using private headers as most of our headers are public ones and in the case or private they would not be external. > >> These simple type of APIs are easy to prove and making them >> experimental seems to just cause an extra step. > > As Thomas mentioned here: > https://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-January/087719.html > > Any new API should be experimental. > > Thomas, Is it different for .h file inline APIs? > >> If the functions are not required that is a different problem or if the API >> is really only ever used by a >> single function or module of files then it should be moved to the module/file >> and made locate to the module/file. > > Agree. > Looks like this function makes sense and may be used by other modules later. > Regards, Keith
